Below is a remarkable document. It’s a memo circulated by Jan van Lohuizen, a highly respected Republican pollster, (he polled for George W. Bush in 2004), to various leading Republican operatives, candidates and insiders. It’s on the fast-shifting poll data on marriage equality and gay rights in general, and how that should affect Republican policy and language. And the pollster’s conclusion is clear: if the GOP keeps up its current rhetoric and positions on gays and lesbians, it is in danger of marginalizing itself to irrelevance or worse.

Millions of GOP Christians in North Carolina just voted in a constitutional ban on gay marriage. What happens when the GOP tries to swing on this issue? Do Christians rebel, or simply start quoting a different part of the Bible and proclaim that they love gays and lesbians as Jesus commands?

43 Responses to “The GOP needs to embrace gays and lesbians”

“And the pollster’s conclusion is clear: if the Christian religion keeps up its current rhetoric and positions on gays and lesbians, it is in danger of marginalizing itself to irrelevance or worse.”

on 15 May 2012 at 6:51 pm 3.Ben said …

Obama jumped to the gay issue so he would not need to discuss his dismissal record.

GOP strategy is simple and has nothing to do with gay marriage, the fictional war on woman or Obamas’s “evolution”. Keep pointing out how Obama is now the worst president in American history. The economy, jobs, debt and America’s marginalized world influence.

The GOP will roll right into the White House.

on 15 May 2012 at 6:58 pm 4.Lou(DFW) said …

3.Ben said …

“Obama jumped to the gay issue so he would not need to discuss his dismissal record.”

Ben, let’s see if you can concentrate on answering the question:

Do Christians rebel, or simply start quoting a different part of the Bible and proclaim that they love gays and lesbians as Jesus commands?

on 15 May 2012 at 7:16 pm 5.Prime said …

3.Ben said …

“GOP strategy is simple”

Yeah, lately it has been: lie… about everything… and make the president look as bad as possible to ensure he loses. It’s about as unamerican a thing as a group of people could possibly do, whether you’re conservative, liberal, or something else.

on 15 May 2012 at 11:10 pm 6.Chris said …

Lou –

“Do Christians rebel, or simply start quoting a different part of the Bible and proclaim that they love gays and lesbians as Jesus commands?”

After discovering what they have to say, please share with us how they are wrong in their belief and interpretation of the Bible…I would be VERY interested to hear from you about it.

(somehow, sadly, I don’t think you’ll listen to even one)

on 15 May 2012 at 11:42 pm 7.Lou(DFW) said …

6.Chris said …

“After discovering what they have to say, please share with us how they are wrong in their belief and interpretation of the Bible…I would be VERY interested to hear from you about it.

(somehow, sadly, I don’t think you’ll listen to even one)”

Apparently your answer is a form of the latter – they reinterpret the bible to fit their beliefs and morals. What’s new? Xtians have been doing that since the bible was written.

Nobody is correct or incorrect in their interpretation of the bible anymore than anyone is about their interpretation of any other fictional story.

on 16 May 2012 at 12:00 am 8.Prime said …

6.Chris said …

“After discovering what they have to say, please share with us how they are wrong in their belief and interpretation of the Bible…I would be VERY interested to hear from you about it.”

It’s simple. They go wrong by relying on the bible, an ancient book of myths and other fictions, as if it is an authoritative account of anything meaningful instead of a book of ramblings of mostly ignorant, partly psychotic goat-herds from a far-flung, remote, barbaric region of desert in the Middle East from some 2500 years ago.

They shouldn’t even be working with a “belief and interpretation of the bible” as if it is a serious document for that purpose. They shouldn’t do so any more seriously than they do with the Iliad or any account of Hercules or the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Bhagavad Gita or Beowulf or (Bram Stoker’s) Dracula or Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

If they want to work with a document with some salience on the matter, they should work with the constitution of the nation they live in, and then, if that document is on the wrong side of the matter, they should work to amend it in favor of the vastly more salient position of human welfare over the absolute correctness of any amount of ink spilled in any pattern across any number of dead trees ground to pulp and pressed flat.

on 16 May 2012 at 11:10 am 9.Suh said …

“Obama jumped to the gay issue so he would not need to discuss his dismissal record.”

It is because Obama is a typical politician, not a leader or a manager. Even Slick Willie is out on the campaign trail criticizing Obama.

His strategy will be blame Bush, blame, weather patterns, demonize Mitt, change the subject and hope Americans are still dumb enough to put him back into power.

on 16 May 2012 at 12:03 pm 10.Lou(DFW) said …

9.Suh said …

OK, you want to change the subject? Let’s go.

“It is because Obama is a typical politician, not a leader or a manager. Even Slick Willie is out on the campaign trail criticizing Obama.”

Suh, you and Ben simply cannot control yourselves can you? That is a symptom of many psychological disorders.

Sounds very similar to the way you and most of the theists here act when confronted about the lack of evidence for your imaginary god.

“…and hope Americans are still dumb enough to put him back into power.”

Hoping that people are dumb enough – the very basis upon which religion is founded.

on 16 May 2012 at 4:04 pm 11.Ben said …

Suh and others who find this funny. Staying on course of politics, GOP and Obama. Obama has felt led to politicize past historical biographies of presidents to promote the greatness of Obama. Here are the top 10 according to twitter.

10. @bradcundiff George Washington cut down the cherry tree but Obama was there to catch it. #ObamaInHistory

8. @politicalmath: Albert Einstein discovered relativity. But it was Obama who discovered it’s political applications. #ObamaInHistory

7. @CuffyMeh: In 1803, Jefferson bought the Louisiana Purchase for $233 million in today’s dollars, which Obama spent while you read this. #ObamaInHistory

6. @JonahNRO General Eisenhower invaded Europe. Historians rank this as almost as audacious as Pres. Obama’s Bin Laden raid. #ObamaInHistory

5. @benshapiro: President Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War. President Obama ended the War on Terror. #obamainhistory

4. @LeviathanLeap: Benjamin Franklin discovered electricity so that Obama could create the Chevy Volt. #ObamaInHistory #tcot #dnc
3. @politicalmath Martin Van Buren was the first president born in the USA. Obama was also born in the USA. #ObamaInHistory

2. @DavidHogberg: #ObamainHistory Reagan said, “Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Obama showed up next day with a sledgehammer.

1. @bethanyshondark: On August 21, 1959 Hawaii became a state of the union so Obama would be eligible to be President. #ObamaInHistory

on 16 May 2012 at 4:16 pm 12.Lou(DFW) said …

11.Ben said …

“Suh and others who find this funny.”

What I find to be funny is that you obviously have a hard-on for Obama.

on 16 May 2012 at 4:27 pm 13.Chris said …

Prime –

“They shouldn’t do so any more seriously than they do with the Iliad or any account of Hercules or the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Bhagavad Gita or Beowulf or (Bram Stoker’s) Dracula or Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.”

Oh, Prime…

Certainly one should look critically at the Bible – as it is done so CONSTANTLY. Now, yes, we should look critically at the others in your list up to the two OBVIOUS works of fictions, wherein your argument starts to fail…

because AGAIN, as it pertains to Dracula and Harry Potter – we have much more evidence to show they are TRULY works of fiction, and in fact, claim no basis of REALITY.

The Gita, certainly makes claims of reality, thus we look at it critically.

EOG – is less clear if it’s to be fiction or not. Thus when one looks at it, critically, one can take a position either way or stay completely neutral.

Herculese – falls into the Greek Mythology, which when critically looked at falls apart rather quickly – despite it’s “possible” claims of reality.

People have been trying to do the same with the Bible – as it CERTAINLY makes claims of reality. However, most critigues haven’t held much sway as they are quickly answered to. I’m sure you have some, and I am more than willing to go through them with you.

Or will you side on your default argument and NOT back up ANY claim you actually make?

on 16 May 2012 at 6:04 pm 14.Prime said …

Chris, if billions of people believed in Mithraism instead of Christianity, you’d dismiss the bible exactly the same way as you just dismissed everything else on that list, particularly the Greek mythology.

on 16 May 2012 at 6:13 pm 15.Prime said …

13.Chris said …

“EOG [Epic of Gilgamesh]- is less clear if it’s to be fiction or not. Thus when one looks at it, critically, one can take a position either way or stay completely neutral.”

It’s fiction. Holy shit.

on 16 May 2012 at 6:15 pm 16.Prime said …

13.Chris said …

“Or will you side on your default argument and NOT back up ANY claim you actually make?”

What are some claims I’ve made?

I’m glad to see you’re cottoning on to what a default position on a matter of belief is, though: DO NOT BELIEVE WITHOUT EVIDENCE, to be compared against “believe until proven you shouldn’t.”

By the way, I have a really cool fragment of Jesus’ cross that I’ll be happy to sell you for $500. Since you can’t prove it’s not Jesus’ cross, surely that seems like a good deal. It cures diseases, if you believe in it hard enough.

on 16 May 2012 at 6:35 pm 17.A said …

Ben,
Those tweets are great! Nobody thinks as much of Obama as Obama. Getting the DOJ to look out for all the people is as important as booting out Obama. What a bigot Holder is.

Make America great again, vote out Obama and his teleprompter.

on 16 May 2012 at 7:13 pm 18.Prime said …

A,

Let me remind you: That’s “President Obama.” Show some respect, or are you one of those unpatriotic “patriots” wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross?

on 16 May 2012 at 7:53 pm 19.Lou(DFW) said …

17.Astrophysicist said …

“Ben,
Those tweets are great!”

As if on cue, here come the sock-puppet fluffers.

on 17 May 2012 at 2:10 am 20.Dez said …

“That’s “President Obama.” Show some respect”

I laugh at these hypocrites. These are the same guys who called President Bush

W.
Bush
Satan
Traitor
Liar

Among a whole host of other names. Prime, at least these guys are calling him by his name, Obama, and not the filth your people called President Bush. I’ll accept that.
And when Obama starts showing respect for States, whites non Dems and Netanyahu, we will show him some respect.

Anyway, I have one to add from today.

#11. Pres. Obama has discovered a new earthquake region in Washington DC called Bush’s Fault

“The Christian right is increasingly out of step with how Americans feel about gay rights. This issue might be the one that destroys them in the end.”

on 17 May 2012 at 6:11 pm 25.Prime said …

Except that international courts in Malaysia are real, and the “country of DEZ” is imaginary, and that’s ‘President Obama’ to you.

on 17 May 2012 at 7:00 pm 26.A said …

Dez the answer you seek is within you. Only read Prime’s posts to see the answer you seek.

A big part of the decision in Malaysia was Gitmo, therefore since BHO has left open Gitmo, could be he is up next. I think they make take on FDR and Truman next. Hopefully we can get Holder thrown in free of charge with his Barack Panthers. A good caning is in order for all.

BHO is noticeably not on board with gay marriage. We know how he likes to sign executive orders and curiously he rebuffs signing the executive order to get marriage redefined to include gays, polygamist, brother/sister, son/mother, etc. After all, if this is about equality it cannot only include the gay community. He is also out of touch on the magnitude of debt and jobs.

Back in 2007, Alan Roebuck at the Conservative Intellectual posted a letter which he had written to the Center For Inquiry.

The Center For Inquiry is an organization based around Scientism and Philosophical Materialism (Naturalism), founded by Paul Kurtz (1). The center wishes to accomplish these objectives:

Fostering a secular society requires attention to many specific goals, but three goals in particular represent the focus of our activities:

1. an end to the influence that religion and pseudoscience have on public policy

2. an end to the privileged position that religion and pseudoscience continue to enjoy in many societies

3. an end to the stigma attached to being a nonbeliever, whether the nonbeliever describes her/himself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist, freethinker or skeptic.

Interestingly, the pursuit of truth and valid reasoning does not appear in their list. And the 3rd objective is not obtainable if the first two are forced onto the rest of us. There are rational reasons that the “atheist, agnostic, humanist, freethinker or skeptic” cannot be trusted; the agression against religions expressed in objectives 1 and 2 are examples. These folks are totally self-unaware in their statements of desired conquest vs their supposed “humanism”, where they wish to enforce “empathy”.

Roebuck put together a great many of the things which I have been saying here, although I said them well after Roebuck wrote the letter. His letter challenges the Naturalism and Scientism stance of the center, and uses clear logic in doing so. In fact he points to the non-coherent stance of making claims about evidence while having no evidence to support the claims.

To top off the article there is a comment thread in which a Naturalistic defender takes issue with the article, and other commenters try to discuss it with him. His retreat comes at 3:46 pm on 12/22/2007, where he demands evidence for supernatural things. And beyond that he goes completely relativistic: everything is mutable, even his own prior definitions of morality.

But this one issue trumps the rest. Says the Materialist:

“Society is the source of morality. What other possible source is there?”

The first extension of this would be that if society deems Atheists, etc to be outcasts, then it must be morally right to consider them outcasts. I had previously thought that it was merely logical; now I understand that it is also moral. It works for societies who say that human sacrifice is moral, slavery is moral, eliminating certain ethnic groups is moral, so many moral things to consider, if one is an Atheist!

The deja vu in reading all this was palpable.

(1) The center evolved in 2009, when Kurtz was kicked out of his own group. According to Kurtz, it ultimately became focused on “angry Atheism”.

on 21 May 2012 at 1:10 am 30.Prime said …

29.40 year Atheist said …

“Back in 2007, Alan Roebuck…”

Literally made it this far and then quit. Stan, get a hobby.

on 21 May 2012 at 1:29 am 31.Anonymous said …

“29.40 year Atheist said”

Only made it thus far, then decided I’d read enough lies and fallacies for a day, then quit.

Stan, get a life. (Apologies to Prime for the extensive borrowing)

on 21 May 2012 at 1:48 am 32.Prime said …

That was going to be my original post, but being that I’m more honest than some of these folks on here give me credit, I accidentally read as far as I quoted, so I told it how it was.

on 21 May 2012 at 8:01 pm 33.Suh said …

“The first extension of this would be that if society deems Atheists, etc to be outcasts, then it must be morally right to consider them outcasts. I had previously thought that it was merely logical; now I understand that it is also moral.”

40Y

Give the guy credit for admitting where morality comes from, society.

Then, in the Middle east, it is OK to murder woman. For the atheist, that is moral. Society decided it was so.

The US has decided atheist are outcast, therefore for the atheist they must accept it as moral.

Their worldview falls apart so quickly.

on 21 May 2012 at 8:41 pm 34.Prime said …

Suh, again you’re proving yourself weak in the cognition department.

Morality doesn’t just spring from society like that, like whatever they think is cool is cool and that makes it moral. Morality is only salient when it springs from a real consideration of the well-being and suffering of sentient creatures. In the Middle East, their murderous ways are immoral because they cause suffering and do not promote well-being. In fact, even if they promoted well-being slightly more than they cause suffering, we still couldn’t call that moral because there are other approaches, like treating women as equals with respect and no murder, that cause far less suffering while promoting more well-being.

We don’t get our morals from whatever society says. That’s mob rule, and it’s almost always immoral. We get our morals from a rational consideration of ourselves and those around us, understanding that our actions have consequences and thus must be chosen in a way that maximizes well-being and minimizes suffering to the largest degree we are capable of in any given situation.

Since those are lots of hard words, let me summarize for you: you’re wrong.

I didn’t claim this, your own did. Try reading the post since you already admitted you did not. Opening mouth and inserting foot is not healthy.

Maybe you can text him and let him know how wrong he is, as are you.

I also don’t trust “we get our morals from a rational consideration of ourselves” since I don’t trust the rationality or the consideration of your ilk. I have seen the results of atheist rule and your desire to eradicate religion.

on 21 May 2012 at 8:58 pm 36.Lou(DFW) said …

33.Suh said …

“The US has decided atheist are outcast, therefore for the atheist they must accept it as moral.”

Show us where “The US” (whatever that means) has made any such decision, ruling, or law. Unless you do, that makes you a liar. So, here’s your chance to retract your comment before you again make an idiot of yourself.

on 21 May 2012 at 9:07 pm 37.Lou(DFW) said …

35.Suh said …

“Prime more reading comprehension problems?”

Did you and Hor go to the same grammar school?

“I have seen the results of atheist rule and your desire to eradicate religion.”

Here we go again – show us where you saw the results of Prime’s “desire to eradicate religion.”

on 21 May 2012 at 9:14 pm 38.alex said …

“I have seen the results of atheist rule and your desire to eradicate religion.”

Maybe it’s the desire to eradicate the effects of religion? You know damn well if “In RA we Trust!” or “In Allah we Trust!” is printed on currency and ancient facsimiles of Egyptians writings or copies of the Quran were left everywhere you wouldn’t like it. Worse, if they passed Muslim based legislation, you’d puke.

Just treat pagans, Methodists, Mormons, Gays, Filipinos the same. Can you do, yes? If the gay wedding ain’t hurtin you, wtf? pray for them in your home and no beatdowns, comprende?

remember, gayness isn’t contagious. maybe help you dress better?

on 21 May 2012 at 9:23 pm 39.Lou(DFW) said …

35.Suh said …

“…since I don’t trust the rationality or the consideration of your ilk.”

Suh, are you an Christian? It’s a simple yes or no question.

on 21 May 2012 at 10:09 pm 40.Lou(DFW) said …

29.40 year Atheist said …

In so many of his “manifestos” he mentions morality as if to use it for evidence of god. It seems that his thinking goes something like this:

There are absolute morals, and God is the true source of them. Therefore, God must exist because there are absolute morals.

Besides being a logical fallacy, it’s wrong because there aren’t any absolute morals.

on 21 May 2012 at 10:32 pm 41.Lou(DFW) said …

29.40 year Atheist said …

“…if society deems Atheists, etc to be outcasts, then it must be morally right to consider them outcasts. I had previously thought that it was merely logical; now I understand that it is also moral.”

So, according to 40YDA theists are morally superior to atheists because they get their morals from god. But the truth is that most atheists have the same morals as do theists, and I think that most theists agree with that. People like 40YDA must have a need to feel superior to people who have the same morals as his, even though the only difference is from where they attribute them. It’s the “holier than thou” self-righteous attitude in action.

on 22 May 2012 at 1:02 am 42.Lou(DFW) said …

Pastor Offers Suggestion For Dealing With ‘Queers’: Stick Them In An Electrified Pen Until They Die Out

To answer your original question, we are not to judge what other people do. If two guys get married or two girls get married, that’s fine. We may not like it but we have no right to judge. That’s up to God.

Leave a Reply

Name (or enter "anonymous")

Mail (optional)(will not be published)

Website (optional)

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page.Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.